Amravati Land Scam case: Supreme Court stays gag order passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, issues notice amid allegations of "regime revenge"

The Supreme Court today stayed the gag order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a matter related to the Amravati land scam case (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dammalapati Srinivas & Ors).

. The Court also issued notice in the plea filed by the state government challenging the High Court direction to bar investigation into the FIR filed in relation to the case.

. The three-judge Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and S ubhash Reddy was hearing a plea filed by the YSR Congress government assailing the gag order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in relation to an FIR registered against a former Advocate General of the State, among others.

. The High Court had also stayed the investigation in relation to the Amravati land scam case, in which the FIR registered by the State’s Anti Corruption Bureau named daughters of a sitting Supreme Court judge.

.Amravati Land Scam Case: Andhra Pradesh govt moves Supreme Court against HC order barring media reportage and police investigation on FIR. Appearing for the state government today, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan submitted that the entire High Court order was based on a letter sent by the State to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on March 23 this year. He said,

"Can a March 23 letter be the basis of the ancillary reliefs being granted? This is a writ alleging political malafide...I ask myself is this an anticipatory bail? The probe was also stayed."

. Taking the Court through the details of the Amravati land scam, Dhavan said that a probe was called for on September 8. A petition challenging the same was filed on September 15.

"As soon as enquiry was ordered, this writ was filed and it was decided on the same day...question is can this be passed?"

. Pointing out that interim relief was granted after it was contended that the "government was running the State in utter disregard of the Constitution", Dhavan questioned whether the same could be grounds for relief in a criminal case.

. "This is an entire political writ petition against the Chief Minister. Plea is based not on facts, but reliable sources which too are not revealed." Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan . Dhavan went on to ask the Court,

"Should such a complaint be investigated at all or not? Are the allegations of mala fide true that he was just targeted for being an AG appearing for the CM? I have not come across such a complaint not disclosing any commission of offence. Was there any racketeering take place or a series of transactions? Is there something which needs to be investigated? This writ was heard at 6.30 pm for the sake of urgency."

. At this point, Justice Bhushan said that the matter needs consideration, and that the Court would issue notice.

. Appearing for the former Advocate General embroiled in the matter, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought to justify the reason for approaching the High Court with such urgency.

"This letter against the AG was forwarded to CBI as he appeared in 25 corruption cases which had been levelled against the Chief Minister. I had urged the High Court to hear it immediately as it tarnished reputation of a lawyer with standing of 30 years."

. "My client is targeted because he was appearing for the (former) CM. This case reeks of malafide. This is worse than Emergency. CBI did not do anything. My reputation is being damaged." Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi . Senior Advocate Harish Salve termed the plea in the Supreme Court as a "vote of no confidence against the High Court". He also brought up the allegations made by Jagan Mohan Reddy against the Chief Justice of the High Court.

. Salve urged the Court not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136, stating that the High Court could deal with the issue. Salve went on to contend,

"High Court knows what is happening in the State. This former AG in his writ has pointed out where all he had appeared against the current CM…has contended that this is why he was targeted."

. Contending that the government has nothing against the High Court, Dhavan countered,

"It is being said this is regime revenge. It was used by me when I was defending former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa in 1996-1997. Such revenge takes place, but does this mean the next government cannot take up an investigation when there is a criminal case with an offence?"

. After hearing the parties, the Court issued notice in the matter, and stayed the High Court's gag order on reporting of the FIR. The matter will be heard in January next year.

. The Jagan Mohan Reddy government had mounted a challenge against the High Court order, primarily stating that the order came to be passed in relation to an FIR which itself was not questioned.

Moreover, while only one petitioner had moved the High Court seeking relief in terms of protection from coercive action and a bar on media reportage, the order passed by the High Court extends the relief to all the other accused persons as well.

. “It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Hon’ble High Court in a Petition where the FIR was not even questioned. Besides, the orders have been passed not only in respect of the Respondent who had filed the writ petition but also in respect of all other accused persons", says the plea.

. The former AG of the State had moved the High Court on September 14, on the grounds that he apprehended coercive steps against him by the State machinery. However, the FIR pursuant to which the AG's plea was filed in the High Court, was registered one day later, on the morning of September 15.

This in effect rendered the petition infructuous, the state government contends.

.Police officials making indiscriminate arrests immediately after FIR: Andhra Pradesh High Court pulls up Police, Magistrate [Read Order]. The relief granted by the High Court is “wholly perverse” , the YSRCP government says in its petition.

It is averred that the petition should not have been entertained by the High Court at a time when the FIR was not even registered. The High Court also proceeded to pass directions without examining the contents of the FIR, “which on bare perusal reflect that a massive scam has taken place", the plea contends.

. It is also argued that the investigation in the case ought not to have been stayed by the High Court and an order to this effect goes against Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

The investigation, it is averred, is at the threshold stage, and thus a stay on the same was not warranted. The stay was granted by the High Court just hours after the FIR was registered. To buttress this point, the petition adds,

“This Hon’ble Court has, in a catena of judgments, categorically deprecated the practise of granting stay of investigation/refraining the investigating agency from taking any adverse or punitive action against the accused persons while hearing petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

. The alleged scam in relation to which this order was passed by the High Court names high dignitaries and functionaries of the State. With a stay on the investigation in place, there is an apprehension of destruction of documentary evidence at the hands of the accused persons, influencing or tampering of evidence and witnesses, and evasion of the investigation process by the accused persons, the state government claims.

. The petition is drawn and filed by Advocate Mahfooz Nazki.

. (Read order)

Amravati Land Scam case: Supreme Court stays gag order passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, issues notice amid allegations of "regime revenge"

Debayan Roy

Related Stories